Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2017

13492263 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/492,263 06/08/2012 Jae-Young LEE 6655-0196PUS1 8551
127226 7590 08/02/2017
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
EXAMINER
BELOUSOV, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2894
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
mailroom @ bskb. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL
AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAE-YOUNG LEE, WON-JAE, and MYUNG-SEOP KIM
Appeal 2016-005455
Application 13/492,263
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005455
Application 13/492,263
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Final Rejection of
claims 1—18 and 25—27. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellants’ invention is directed to an organic light emitting display
device and a method of manufacturing the same in which organic and
inorganic thin films are formed on a polarization plate, and the polarization
plate is attached to an organic light emitting panel so that the organic and
inorganic thin films seal the organic light emitting panel, thereby achieving
improved polarization and a simple sealing structure (Spec. 12).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An organic light emitting display device
comprising:
a substrate;
an organic light emitting element array disposed on the
substrate;
a polarization plate disposed over the organic light
emitting element array and including a first thin-film stacked
structure formed of at least one of an organic film and an
inorganic film;
and
an adhesive layer disposed between the substrate and the
polarization plate, wherein the adhesive layer covers the organic
light emitting element array, and wherein the at least one of the
organic film and the inorganic film is in contact with the adhesive
layer.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
2
Appeal 2016-005455
Application 13/492,263
1. Claims 1—8, 16, 17, and 25—27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as unpatentable over Song1 (US 2008/0048558 A1 publish. Feb. 28,
2008; KR 10-2008-0006922 A, Jan. 17, 2008).
2. Claims 9, 10, 12—15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Song.
3. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Song in view of Crouch (US 7,545,570 B2 issued June 9, 2009).
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Song fails to teach that second electrode layer
33 functions as an adhesive (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2). Appellants contend
that the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term “adhesive” is
unreasonable when read in light of the Specification (Reply Br. 6).
Appellants argue that the term “adhesive” when read in light of the
Specification includes a material that is designed to stick to something
(Reply Br. 6). Appellants rely on paragraphs 71 and 77 of the Specification
as evincing that an adhesive layer is one that actually has the ability to stick
to another layer (Reply Br. 7). Appellants contend that if second electrode
layer 33 of the organic light emitting element 3 in Song is considered to be
an adhesive, then Song fails to teach the adhesive layer covering the organic
1 The Examiner relies on the Korean patent document KR 10-2008-0006922
in the statement of the rejection (Final Act. 2). Appellants cite to the US
Pre-grant Publication US 2008/0048558 A1 as the English language
equivalent of the Korean document (App. Br. 5). Indeed, the US
2008/0048558 A1 claims the filing date of the Korean patent application 10-
2006-0066269, which is the application of the Korean published application
KR 10-2008-0006922 A published January 17, 2008. Accordingly, we rely
on US 2008/0048558 A1 as the English language equivalent of the Korean
document.
3
Appeal 2016-005455
Application 13/492,263
light emitting element array because the second electrode layer 33 is part of
the organic light emitting element 3 (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 7).
The preponderance of the evidence favors Appellants’ arguments of
novelty and non-obviousness. Claim 1 requires that “the adhesive layer
covers the organic light emitting element array.” Song describes layer 33 as
a second electrode layer that is part of the organic light emitting element 3
(Song 142). Therefore, the Examiner’s interpretation2 of Song’s second
electrode layer 33 as being an adhesive layer fails to explain why Song
would also teach layer 33 covering the organic light emitting element 3, of
which layer 33 is part. In other words, the Examiner’s findings fail to
address how Song’s structure satisfies both limitations of the claim that
require an adhesive layer wherein the adhesive layer covers the organic light
emitting element. Based upon Song’s disclosure that the second electrode
layer 33 is part of the organic light emitting element, the Examiner’s
analysis that layer 33 is an adhesive but not part of the organic light emitting
element is contrary to Song’s disclosure. The Examiner does not explain
how Song meets this limitation other than to find that Song’s layer 33 may
be considered an adhesive layer and so satisfies the requirement of the
adhesive covering the organic light emitting element (Ans. 18). Because the
Examiner has not established that Song anticipates the claimed subject
matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we reverse the Examiner’s
2 The Examiner relies on Webster’s Dictionary as a basis for finding that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of adhesive is “tending to adhere or cause
adherence” (Ans. 16—17). Based upon this definition of adhesive, the
Examiner finds that Song’s second electrode layer 33 may be considered an
adhesive because it tends to adhere to the layers above and below it (Ans.
17).
4
Appeal 2016-005455
Application 13/492,263
anticipation rejection (1).
We note that the Examiner makes no findings regarding the
obviousness of having an adhesive layer over an organic light emitting
element in Song’s organic light emitting device in rejections (2) and (3)
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, rejections (2) and (3) are reversed for the
same reasons as rejection (1).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is reversed.
ORDER
REVERSED
5